JC / Railbird

Your metric is way off. In 2006 and ’08 you would have had an anomaly with the breakdowns of Barbaro and Eight Belles. Every story about either of them would have included the words Kentucky Derby. If you have a database, couldn’t you have sorted references to the race between January 1 and March 31 (first quarter)?

Of course, my first point doesn’t explain why 2007 was so high. SS, Curlin, and R2R provided some buzz certainly, but I wouldn’t have expected 2007 to approach either ’06 or 08 given what happened AFTER the Derby in each of those years.

Posted by EJXD2 on April 2, 2009 @ 8:43 am

Barbaro died in 07, so any mention of him during that time would probably have the words ‘Kentucky Derby’ in it. I would be interested to what the result for 07 would be without any of the Barbaro articles from the first two months of 07.

This is a tough metric to figure. 09 could not be included on the graph because it doesn’t fall within the time frame definition.

Posted by o_crunk on April 2, 2009 @ 8:48 am

I did say it was a quick search. I guess I should have added, not rigorous and purely for conversational purposes. But here you go, Kentucky Derby references uses of the phrase, “Kentucky Derby,” January 1-March 31, 2003-2009: 202, 233, 207, 203, 429 (Barbaro!) or 258 (no Barbaro!), 236, 117. Hm … not sure now what to make of that last … either there’s a sharp drop, or data for 2009 QI is incomplete. Possibly a bit of both. Let’s look just at March 1-31, 2003-2009: 25, 29, 31, 65, 94, 34, 73. Well, that’s interesting … 2009 ranks as the second-highest of the years. Maybe interest in the Derby is shaping up late?

Ed, has there been any discussion within the NTWA (or elsewhere) about surveying the state of turf journalism? A real analysis, not just a keyword search done on a lark, could be fascinating (also possibly depressing, assuming there’s a decline corresponding to the overall downward trend in the news business).

Posted by Jessica on April 2, 2009 @ 8:54 am

Unrelated–or tangentially, perhaps, as it has to do with media–but I write this because of your (and my) ongoing interest in the licensing/distribution of racing information. Racing’s not the only one with some screwed up priorities.

I was browsing the Life archives, which make use of images licensed by Getty; rather than just pilfering photos I wanted to use, I contacted Getty to find out how much it would cost to use them legally. Because my site is “commercial” (barely!), I could use the three photos for one month at $300 per photo. Lower resolution photos would be available for three months at $49 per.

I am a big defender of copyright and the right of artists to make money off their work in a stodgy, old-media kind of way, but this seems ridiculous.

Posted by Teresa on April 2, 2009 @ 10:07 am

My own inconsequential, unscientific and casual observations come to the same conclusion… where’s the buzz? I keep forgetting the Derby a month away.

T – paying for Getty’s overhead there, just like a bloated mutual fund. Wonder what percent the artists sees in that arrangement? Burn old media, burn!

Posted by dana on April 2, 2009 @ 10:50 am

Jess, Do you think we’re beginning to see the effects of reduced “mainstream” media? In other words, have enough papers reduced size/laid off writers/closed to have an effect on your search?

Posted by QQ on April 2, 2009 @ 7:36 pm

That’s the question. I’d say yes, because cuts have been so extensive it makes sense we’d be seeing a noticeable reduction in coverage now, but that’s a conclusion I’m very interested in testing by doing a media survey.

Posted by Jessica on April 3, 2009 @ 9:09 am